God, the Constitution, and our Rights

The Constitution, and Bill of Rights, at its foundation, is our inalienably rights, which are given by God. The Natural law, and Common law, again at
its core foundation, are God given rights, and the right of ownership, (or property rights). This is all based on the presupposition of the existence
of God, (or Creator). So the movement to get God out of the Constitution, would open the door to man's law, which could legislate by decision, our
inalienable rights into non existence. I do not think (We The People) want that to happen.
What do you think? Do you want TPTB to have that open door, to be placed under man's law. I know it seems like we are under that right now. The
reason we feel that way is, we don't have the knowledge to defend our rights. If you want to know what you can do to get involved, and learn how to
defend your rights check out

I would hope that you might take the time to study the prophetic opinions of our Forefathers. Maybe you have, and that is your opinion, but it
definitely is not mine!!! I'm asking do you want this removed from the Constitution and Bill of Rights? a reply to:
AprilFooseball

Which God? The Christian God? The Hebrew God? Allah? Zeus? What if there is no God?

I thought we were supposed to have religious freedom in this country? I thought everyone was free to worship whatever God they want, or no God at
all?

If we are a nation of religious freedom, then our government should not represent any particular god. Yes, we should take God out of the constitution.
Unalienable rights just means rights that you are born with. There doesn't have to be a god involved in that.

I thought it was a Creator they mention. If we truly exist, and all things in the world and universe exist, and these things came from an original
source, then that source must be this creator they talk about. Whether that is a being, a force, an accident, whatever, this source is the Creator and
I would feel fine if it were left at that as long as we can ascribe rights to our existence that came from this source at our birth. Personally I
don't care what you call this Creator, but that is an accurate word in my opinion.

If we leave our rights in the hands of a human, or group of humans, they will be abused and misused. Humans have proven to be unreliable when they
have been trusted to preserve our rights. So, God?, I prefer the creator of all things, the source of sources, really this is all just semantics and
word play.

Of course, if humans are the source of our rights as humans, then I have as much rights as the next human anyway, unless you believe some have
authority over others. That authority of human over human can only come from superior force, so the guy with bare hands must submit to the might of
the guy with a gun or an army of followers, etc. Might makes right in a case like this and not what I believe regardless of what we call the creator
of all things.

Bottom line is I believe in human equality regardless of where things came from. Once you ascribe mores rights to some over others, for reasons like
intelligence or physical attributes, you have a Nazi-like eugenics type of thing that could justify wiping out whole populations or enslaving women,
children, and who ever doesn't seem fit enough to have any rights at all.

originally posted by: Michaelfunction
So I'm asking do we really want God out of the Constitution!!!!

God is not mentioned in the Constitution or amendments...

God

It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the
words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution,
neither the original nor in any of the Amendments.

originally posted by: Michaelfunction
The Constitution, and Bill of Rights, at its foundation, is our inalienably rights, which are given by God. The Natural law, and Common law, again at
its core foundation, are God given rights, and the right of ownership, (or property rights). This is all based on the presupposition of the existence
of God, (or Creator). So the movement to get God out of the Constitution, would open the door to man's law, which could legislate by decision, our
inalienable rights into non existence.... (snip)

So I'm asking do we really want God out of the Constitution!!!!

Bless your heart for posting this. Natural Law and its attendant inalienable rights is a national discussion that needs to be had. In talking to
people, I'm amazed (and appalled) at how many people have never heard of Natural Law/Natural Rights and its integral place in our founding... and I
think that you're correct that there is a coordinated effort to undermine our natural inalienable rights with civil rights -- given by man and easily
taken by man. Civil rights are a piss poor substitution for inalienable rights.

But the decision of our founding fathers to use "Creator" and not "God," was a wise choice based on experience with tyrannical religious
institutions. The Inquisition and Burning Times were not ancient history to them. So, in keeping with our natural inalienable right to worship
according to our conscience, "Creator" includes God, Allah, Yahweh, even Mother Nature, encompassing all and excluding none.

This is an important distinction, because there are those who confuse Natural Law with church law, and try to impose their religious dogma in that
light. No matter how good their intentions, it only discredits and undermines our natural rights, and furthers the divide-and-conquer game the PTB
play against us.

Homosexuality is the first example that comes to mind, which I have seen many Christians condemn based on their misunderstanding of Natural Law. To
be more specific, natural law covers that which comes from nature as opposed to that which comes from man. Man does not and never did make
homosexuals. Homosexuality is not the norm, much like people who are left-handed, but it is natural... it came from nature. Homosexuality was not
created in a laboratory or a manufacturing plant or even by an act of congress. Therefore, it is a protected right.

In this light, I am more appreciative and grateful for the wisdom of our founding fathers than ever. As I posted in another thread, there is no room
within our Constitution, and therefore our laws, for any laws respecting religion. Only for the provision and protection of everyone's natural
rights. And it's a subject that needs to be had on a national level... at least in my seldom humble opinion.

Especially at this time, when we have religions trying (and sometimes successfully) to force laws that respect an
establishment of religion.

Thanks. I had a hard time putting the thoughts into words and I wasn't sure if I did it justice. But I agree, it's important to make the
distinction along with the whys and wherefores for that very reason.

originally posted by: Michaelfunction
The Constitution, and Bill of Rights, at its foundation, is our inalienably rights, which are given by God. The Natural law, and Common law, again at
its core foundation, are God given rights, and the right of ownership, (or property rights). Unless you're female like me, then you'd BE property.
Harf harf harf.

This is all based on the presupposition of the existence of God, (or Creator).

Property rights are based on the assumption that there is a god? Not sure how you figured that one out.

So the movement to get God out of the Constitution, would open the door to man's law, which could legislate by decision, our inalienable rights into
non existence.

Actually, turning things into a bible based law structure would eliminate all of my freedom as an individual because I have a vagina. Try reading
it again because I don't think you understood that part.

I do not think (We The People) want that to happen.

We the people, or you da man? Because the bible doesn't give women rights at all.

What do you think? Do you want TPTB to have that open door, to be placed under man's law. I know it seems like we are under that right now. The
reason we feel that way is, we don't have the knowledge to defend our rights. If you want to know what you can do to get involved, and learn how to
defend your rights check out

Yes of course I do. First, I don't believe in a god so why would I want my life decided by some invisible sky monster? Second, I am a woman and I like
being able to live freely and continue having serious relations with my girlfriend. Keep this nonsense away from me. I like myself too much to be
traded for some shekels.

You pointed out what I had just posted before, however, your presentation was geared toward sensitive interest groups who may believe certain dogmas
concerning Judeo-Christian beliefs. It was perfectly articulated, understandable and clearly showed the spurious connection to any particular
religion.

However, with this false notion that creator means the Judeo-Christian God, many people with dogmatic beliefs will extrapolate the meaning to include
every dictate found in the Bible. They then become defensive, spouting the pre-programed rhetoric of their particular belief.

Case in point is the post 2nd up from mine, the one with four stars (amazingly enough). I wonder if O.A. even bothered to read past the word God in
the original post?

For some people, words like "God", or worse "Jesus" are some kind of trigger words to justify regurgitating their rhetoric in perfect Pavlovian
fashion.

I don't think that God is the wrong term myself, I take it to mean the creator of the universe, and of course human beings.

I thought you explained it as well as Boadicea or myself, except that word "God" is a trigger word that is somehow associated with ignorance and
oppression, but in common usage it may just mean the creator of all things, whatever that is.

There are all kinds of politically charged trigger words, it is unfortunate that God is one of those words.

Thank you -- both for these kind words, and for your post which set the premise and allowed me to expand on it. It isn't always easy presenting
complex concepts in simple understandable terms, eh?

For some people, words like "God", or worse "Jesus" are some kind of trigger words to justify regurgitating their rhetoric in perfect
Pavlovian fashion.

Unfortunately, there is good reason for this reaction, and it isn't an accident or a simple misunderstanding. There are too many people who have
been bludgeoned with the sword of faith by too many religious people who want to impose their "truth" on everyone. Religion has been weaponized to
keep us divided. Which is why it's so important to make the distinction.

I think that we need to stop using some mythical being as a crutch. So yes references to "god" need to be removed from our laws.

What word or wording would you suggest to replace the meaning implied by "God"? The intent, obviously is these rights are given to everyone simply
because they exist and were born. While I'm not religious nor am I convinced that there is a biblical "God", I have no problem with using the word,
or name. Why it bothers some people is really kind of silly. Unless it is just a personal attack to force others to follow their own beliefs. Or
sticking a finger in someone's eye to be an ass. Which is what I believe in most cases.

It appears to be the same people who scream at Catholics about gays saying "live and let live" that later scream at Catholics "there is no god...give
it up". A bit of a contradiction.

PS: Laws created "under God" also remove any possibility of man changing them as man cannot say that God made a mistake (or so it is said). Laws
created by man can always be argued. So if you want some base rules, that no man can change...you kind of have to make them untouchable. Don't
you?

Why would an Ultimate Creator be responsible for the Laws governing property that ultimately go against all of the OTHER laws laid out by this same
so-called Creator.

Not to speak for the OP -- or God -- but who would be more interested in the laws governing property than the creator of said property? For example,
if one believes in a benevolent and loving God, then one would assume that God wants all His/Her beloved children to enjoy the bounties of the Earth
that He/She created, including having a piece of land to make a home. In a purely humanitarian sense, we all have rights to a share of the earth
resources, including a place to live. No one is born with a property deed tattooed on their butt, so no one "deserves" a home more than anyone
else.

In a political or social sense, many of our founding fathers wanted every adult male to own property, because they felt it was important for the
voting citizenry to have a stake in the county... something to protect and defend.

For all intents and purposes, what you referred to as God's Law and what our founding fathers called natural inalienable rights are what the UN and
others call Human Rights today. But the bottom line is the same: Fundamental rights that sustain and nurture all humanity, inalienable and
non-transferable.

It is too easy to corrupt these laws, and use them against the Good of All Mankind.

Indeed, man can and will corrupt anything and everything if given half the chance. Always have and always will. What would you suggest as a better
foundation for defining our rights?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.